Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

Rousseau turns from the physical condition of humans in nature to what he calls their “metaphysical and moral side” (113). He acknowledges that humans are distinct from other animals, which are essentially the same throughout their lifespan and subsequent generations. Individuals and societies can engage in self-directed change and therefore possess a spiritual dimension in addition to a physical form. However, for Rousseau, that same desire for improvement is also the primary cause of degeneration. He generally regards humankind’s efforts to improve themselves as having backfired, making their lives more complicated and multiplying potential sources of misery.

Rousseau argues that Humanity’s Capacity for Reason is a product of its passions since the primary use of reason is to achieve what one desires. When a person learns that they can achieve what they want, their reasoning becomes more sophisticated so that they can satisfy an ever-expanding set of desires. For a human in nature, by contrast, “his desires do not exceed his physical needs” (116), and nature provides him with what he needs. Rousseau then discusses how natural human beings on their own could never have developed the skills necessary for modern life and would never have had the inclination to do so. Developing techniques of farming would have required centuries of difficult labor and meager reward, and even if a “savage” person could have envisioned such a thing, they would never have given up the relative ease of eating what nature readily offers. Similarly, they never would have developed language, because they would have lived life mostly on their own. Furthermore, people had no reason to communicate because they needed nothing they did not already have.

The main reason for there being no social advancement is that human beings would have no lasting need for one another. Moreover, there would have been no notion of right or wrong. Rousseau argues that the capacity for moral reasoning derives from passions that do not exist in nature. The emotion of pity would be predominant as people would be so similar to one another that it would be easy for them to see themselves in those who are suffering or need help. When people developed the ability to reason, they found ways to rationalize cruelty or neglect, whereas instinct alone would never prompt one person to harm another except in occasional, momentary confrontations over matters such as a source of food, which Rousseau believes would usually amount to a minor scuffle.

Rousseau pays particular attention to sexuality, which is obviously natural and seemingly the most likely instinct to provoke violent confrontations. Rousseau identifies the natural element as the urge to copulate, which can be easily satisfied through contact with any member of the opposite sex. He distinguishes this from “the sentiment of love” (134), which introduces longing and jealousy. If people were like animals, sexual activity would be purely instinctual and opportunistic, and parents (in Rousseau’s reading, mothers) would care for their children only as long as it was necessary for their survival. Only in later stages of society do people become fixated on the object of their affection and fight with others over a partner they both desire.

In nature, human beings would not have abstract concepts such as beauty or love. And because humans produce males and females in equal numbers, and females are fertile throughout the year, there would be little difficulty in finding partners and sustaining the population. He states, “[W]here there is no love, of what use is beauty?” (139). No one would be anxious to be admired or shamed as a result of being rejected. While some physical differences are inevitable, even seemingly natural differences in strength and intelligence are more often the product of education than nature. He concludes the first part by noting that while it may not be possible to prove his account of human nature to be historically accurate, it is the role of philosophy to supply logical proposals where historical facts are lacking. He is confident that his interpretation is accurate based on reasoning even in the absence of physical evidence